Laserfiche WebLink
MASHPEE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS <br /> MEETING MINUTES <br /> FEBRUARY 13,2019 <br /> The tower is being placed in his client's neighborhood. He calls this environmental justice. <br /> The impact is on the people of New Seabury's homes.They're the ones getting this service, <br /> and they ought to have the impact,not his clients. Applied to variance standards,there was <br /> nothing heard about shape, topography, etc. of the property? This is about coverage, not <br /> about the property. <br /> There were several abutters that spoke who oppose the cell tower. <br /> • Michael Ronhock <br /> • Teresa Ronhock <br /> • Brian Hyde <br /> • Sharon, on Scituate Road <br /> • Carl Lubekzyk <br /> • Linda Lubekzyk <br /> • Dan Kupperman <br /> • Sharon Muller <br /> A resident wanted to discuss the location.Mr.Furbush said that the Planning Board decides <br /> the site location, not the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board is only discussing the height <br /> variance. <br /> Attorney Thompson said there are no feasible alternatives to the location. The area has <br /> been truly vetted. The reference leased that was mentioned by Attorney Revere regarding <br /> New Seabury, was terminated by Verizon Wireless, and they were re-approached by <br /> Verizon when the RFP was issued, and had discussions about a new lease at New Seabury <br /> Country Club. The answer from New Seabury was; "no", it's not a viable alternative to the <br /> proposed location. There were 150 locations they looked at. <br /> There was a resident who is concerned about the coverage for future. There was a resident <br /> who asked if anyone could erect a tower anywhere else in Town. Mr. Furbush said; no. <br /> Attorney Thompson responded that under the Telecommunication Act, the Massachusetts <br /> Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A, §10 Variance laws are not controlling. If there is a significant <br /> gap in coverage, if there are no feasible alternatives, then a Variance is required. There is <br /> case law that support this.The Cape Cod Commission,who is the regulatory body in charge <br /> of this project have reviewed the data that this height is needed. It's supported by the data, <br /> it's supported by the law, and the FCC ruling was challenged in the circuit.There's binding <br /> case law on the TCA and from the FCC saying that the effective prohibition is going to <br /> occur then a Variance is necessitated in Massachusetts. <br /> There was a resident who spoke asking what height is required to get total coverage. <br /> 8 <br />